France's conservative party

Unbelievably Messy Process

IT WAS supposed to be a leadership election to clear the air after the party’s 2012 defeats, and set it up for the next elections in five years’ time. Instead, the right-wing UMP’s internal election turned from farce to fiasco after the wafer-thin victory of Jean-François Copé (pictured on the left) by just 98 votes, was contested by the loser, François Fillon (pictured on the right). In an impasse, the party is now bitterly divided, with many deputies deeply worried about its future.

For two months, the rivalry for the job between Mr Copé, a former budget minister and the UMP’s outgoing secretary-general, and Mr Fillon, formerly prime minister under President Nicolas Sarkozy, has been raucous. In line with Mr Sarkozy’s (unsuccessful) electoral strategy, Mr Copé positioned himself as leader of the droite décomplexée (unapologetic right), code for hard talk about immigration and Islam in particular. Mr Fillon, a tweedier figure who has cultivated a centrist stance on social matters, suits the party’s traditional Gaullists. The hope was that the race would produce a clear choice between the two, creating a strong mandate for the new leader.

Yet the vote on November 18th split the UMP down the middle. By the next day, as counting continued, the result was contested, leading to the bizarre sight of each candidate declaring victory. It was not until late the next day, after a recount in some regions, that the party’s electoral commission declared Mr Copé the winner. “The party’s political line has been defined,” a jubilant Mr Copé declared, vowing that the UMP would henceforth “combat political correctness”. But Mr Fillon cried foul, claiming that votes from three overseas territories had not been included. Add them in, he said, and he would have won by 26 votes. The situation, said Alain Juppé, a former prime minister, was “irresponsible and disastrous: the very existence of the UMP is at stake.”

Mr Fillon had been favourite for the job. Most opinion polls suggested he would win. But they were taken among UMP supporters, not card-carrying members, who proved to be more right-wing. There were always fears among Fillon aides that Mr Copé, who as secretary-general controlled the party machine, was an underestimated threat. On November 21st Mr Fillon said he might still press charges, but he no longer sought the top job. The real loser in all this is the French right as a whole. Mr Fillon says he will stay in the party. But already one deputy, Pierre Méhaignerie, a former government minister, has announced that he is leaving to join a small centrist movement launched by Jean-Louis Borloo, a disgruntled former Sarkozy ally.

Many established younger figures in the party, such as Valérie Pécresse, a former budget minister, or Laurent Wauquiez, a former Europe minister, backed Mr Fillon. Plenty of them were uncomfortable with Mr Copé’s lurch to the right. Some of the ideas he expressed in the past have drawn wider support, notably his ban on the all-over face-covering burqa in the streets. But they disapprove of other recent provocations, such as Mr Copé’s claim that there is a growing “anti-white racism” in heavily immigrant corners of the country.

As for the other parties, Mr Copé’s victory may not obviously help the far-right National Front. Marine Le Pen, the front’s pugnacious leader, had been betting on an implosion of the mainstream right, in the hope of luring disaffected right-wingers to her cause. Those right-wingers, however, will be snugly housed in the new UMP under Mr Copé.

For the Socialist government of President François Hollande, however, both the shenanigans and a Copé victory could scarcely be better news. The Socialists would have more to fear from the prospect of a Fillon candidacy at the 2017 presidential election, because of his appeal to the centre. Although his nomination cannot be ruled out, as the party will hold a separate primary for the candidacy, Mr Copé will be in a strong position to win it—unless, that is, a divided party turns in desperation back to Mr Sarkozy.

Readers' comments

The French right and the US right are so similar in many ways.
Both are split between rational moderate conservatives, and an irrationally jingoistic, xenophobic faction that deny common sense - basic science in the case of the US Tea Party, and basic economics in the case of the Gaullists.

The UK conservatives (for completeness) are already split between the Tories and the UKIP - who are as jingoistic and xenophobic and the Gaullists and the Tea Party, but deny basic political common sense, wrt the EU.

The similarity with US Republicans is obvious. The UMP has been drawn into the Reps' vicious circle - leaders are chosen by the daft extremes, and thus stand no chance at the polls.

The French Socialists have so far avoided that danger, by splitting and de facto expelling the extreme left with little qualms. Also they have been doing what Omricon is preaching. When leftist representatives threatened not to approve the latest European treaty, which had been initiated by Sarkozy and thus would get the right's votes, that posed no problem to the Socialist govt.

However I'd question your characterization of Copé's side as "Gaullist". He is anything but. "Real" Gaullists such as Dupont-Aignan are a tiny minority both in the party and in the country.

Gaullism is center-right. Even left-wing french socialist party (PS) do like to think they have many things in common with De Gaulle.
Far-right here is the "Front National (FN)", and because, since 2002, they are growing at the expense of the UMP (right), many in UMP are trying to attract FN voters.

And yeah, it's currently the same thing in all western democracies. Even if, IMO, UK is still a little spared. UKIP is still very marginalised in politic and media.

In France, I would even add that the left wing PS were trying, during election, to attract many far-left voters too from the Front de Gauche (Mélanchon).
A mojority of the population is pissed off by the two main parties.

Perhaps this points to a major flaw in modern democracy. Not just a flawed primary system which ballots the opinions of the extreme but also government where party lines are rigidly enforced. I would love to see the day when major legislation is pass by a coalition of the governing party's moderates with the main opposition party's reluctant support before switching over when elections change government

As an example, in the UK, I would love to see moderate Labour MPs voting (reluctantly) with moderate Conservatives as an expression of support for the centre with the opposite happening when Labour regain power. In each case the extreme left of the Labour party and the extreme right of the Conservative party can be maarginalised ensuring that their crazy ideas never make it into legislation as some kind of compromise to get their votes on sensible legislation.

Ideally this would stop nutty ideas like the 75% tax in France or extreme Conservative party Europhobia or silly anti immigration policy.

''unless, that is, a divided party turns in desperation back to Mr Sarkozy''
Yes indeed, it would have to be real desperation to turn to a proven failure in the presidency of France.
Just how long have the right and the pseudo-aristocratic de Nagy-Bocsas of this world held power, ministerially and more, trying to get things 'right'?
And they want yet more time to fail more? (Or is it the EU mentality of out with democracy, just keep repeating stuff until you batter the punters into submission through sheer exhaustion with you?)
France needs new approaches with new ideas, not more of the failed same, endlessly piled up over and over again.
The has beens need to leave the stage.

What Mr Cope gains on the right he will lose in the center. The UMP has fallen into the same trap that the GOP in the USA have - being so scared of the bogeyman of the far right that they have appeased them by endorsing hard right policies and so rendering themselves unelectable nationally.